It was <2013-12-31 wto 06:26>, when MyungJoo Ham wrote: >> It was <2013-12-25 ?ro 14:12>, when Yin Kangkai wrote: >> > On 2013-12-25, 13:53 +0100, Stephane Desneux wrote: >> [...] >>>> So regarding your question, Tizen:Generic/armv7/X11 shouldn't be far from >>>> mobile, except that the specific components won't be installed. This image >>>> should be installable on a RD-PQ. The same applies to Intel based mobile >>>> platforms. >>> >>> But to be honest, I don't think kernel is in that package set. (As >>> discussed in another thread in this list) kernel is always specific >>> for different vertical/hardware, >> >> Indeed they need different configuration. However, I can see no reason >> why all verticals can't use a single source tree. If some need some >> hardware support this should not be a problem for others. If a profile >> needs a patch for kernel's "core" (mm, scheduler, security etc.) that >> conflicts with other verticals we need to resolve the conflict not hide it. > > I also think it would be ideal to share the same source tree. > However, the circumstances don't seem to be that ideal now. Thus, I > don't think this is something we can go right now. (At least not for > Tizen 3.0) > > For now, the expected benefit of sharing the source tree between x86 > Tizen "references" and ARM Tizen "references" or IVI and Mobile: > - Sharing bugfix patches. (However, expected to be included in LTS > anyway if you use LTS. So this benefit is very limited for LTS kernel > users) > - Aethestic Kernel (not too significant)
- and a smaller risk of userland failing after too fast updates. There is of course another way to address this problem which I have proposed already: multiple Verified labels in gerrit, one for every image/profile. Kind regards, -- Łukasz Stelmach Samsung R&D Institute Poland Samsung Electronics
pgpTinySAqAVA.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.tizen.org/listinfo/dev
